On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 16:45 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: > On 03/28/2014 04:37 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > RHEL's Mesa at this point links against a private build of llvm that > > is explicitly _not_ part of The Platform, for exactly this reason: > > it's not something we can commit to supporting for any use beyond > > Mesa itself, even in the extreme short term. > > This might be a good way forward for Fedora as well to avoid changing > the system-wide llvm ABI mid release. Eh. We've done an llvm rebase before: dmt:~% koji -q latest-pkg f18 llvm llvm-3.1-11.fc18 f18 salimma dmt:~% koji -q latest-pkg f18-updates llvm llvm-3.3-0.4.rc2.fc18 f18-updates ajax People were pretty eager for it then, too, and we even did it _because_ we wanted a Mesa rebase to go with it. llvm upstream doesn't do stable branches, so there's really not a good solution here. And tbf llvm really is a research project more than a compiler in a lot of ways, anyone building against it is going to discover they're building on sand eventually, regardless of when Fedora updates it. That said I'm not intrinsically opposed to doing, say, compat-llvm (in fact I suggested it in F18). Though if I had to choose between that and mesa-private-llvm in Fedora... I dunno, they're both kind of terrible. compat-llvm would let us stick to the rule about not shipping the same source in two packages, but m-p-l might have marginally better performance. Neither one seems as sane to me as just accepting llvm as not actually ABI. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
